Talk:End of World War II in Europe

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

Notice: This is a daughter article of World War II - It was taken from the mother page made to alleviate the size of the older article. WhisperToMe 07:21, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Surrender documents in Rheims and Berlin

Jodl was not present at the signing in front of Zhukov in Berlin! The very documents linked to in the article show this. Reverting. --Nelnadon 07:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Time Zones at Ceasefire

If All forces under German control to cease active operations at 2301 hours Central European time on 8th May 1945. Given that Britain was on Double Summer time what time was it in London? Also what time was it in Washington and Moscow? Philip Baird Shearer 15:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Central European Time is GMT +1. Assuming Germany was on Daylight Saving Time in May 1945 then it would have been GMT+2. British Double Summer Time was also GMT+2. So it was the same time in both Britain and Germany, which as this site points out would have facilitated troop movements onto the Continent. The US was observing War Time, so Washington (GMT -5) was at GMT -4 at ceasefire, 3:01 PM, May 8. Moscow is at GMT +3. Assuming a DST/War Time was in effect there (I haven't found anything concrete), then it was 1:01 AM, May 9 at ceasefire. Otherwise, it was one minute past midnight. --Nelnadon 22:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The RAF says "On 7 May General Eisenhower, with representatives from Britain, Russia and France, accepted the unconditional surrender of all German forces on all fronts, to be effective from 0001 hours on 9 May." This suggests that Germany was not (yet) on daylight saving time on 8 May, or if the civilians were, the Armies were not or the times in the docment were CET not CET+1.

Until anyone comes up with a better source which contradicts it. I have added a note to the page stating that British Double Summer Time meant that the effective time of the surrender in the UK was 0001 hours on 9 May. Philip Baird Shearer 13:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. GMT+2 (or more accurately as you put it, CET+1) is properly called "Central European Summer Time" according to ["timeanddate.com"], but for whatever reason the docs are in CET. Germany has observed Summer Time since the first World War, and I have found nothing to indicate the Nazis repealed it or moved its start date from the typical early spring time. So we can conclude it was 0001 hours in both Britain and Germany, May 9, 1945. --Nelnadon 07:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

---

The next day 22:43 (CET) German officials in Berlin signed a similar document,

I have removed 22:43 because it is not sourced and and does the source quote CET or "Central European Summer Time" (CET+1)? --Philip Baird Shearer 20:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

---

• Barrett Tillman, Brassey's (Firm) Brassey's D-Day Encyclopedia: The Normandy Invasion A-Z", Brassey's, 2004 ISBN 1574887602. p. 238. Suggests that the times used in Europe by English sources were using UK time at least for the initial phases of the campaign.
• Hugh M. Cole UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II: The European Theater of Operations: THE LORRAINE CAMPAIGN
• RAF Site Diary 7/8 May the surrender time in the UK was "effective from 0001 hours on 9 May"
• The Churchill document wikisource:Winston_Churchill_announces_the_Surrender_of_Germany implies that hostilities officially finished at 00:001 July 9 for British troops.

I have not yet found a definitive source but it seems that the time chosen for the Germans to stop operations was 00:01 9 May local time for the Western Allies on the front line.

For example Churchill records that "Yesterday morning at 2:41 a.m. ... General Jodl ... signed the act of unconditional surrender..." and in the same document states "Hostilities will end officially at one minute after midnight to-night (Tuesday, May 8), but in the interests of saving lives the "Cease fire" began yesterday to be sounded all along the front, and our dear Channel Islands are also to be freed to-day." Which implies that the time of 2:41 a.m. is using the same time zone (BDST) as 00:01 9 May, mentioned in the second quote. And several sources mention this time for example Germany Surrenders, 1945 by United States National Archives and Records Administration, "The unconditional surrender of the German Third Reich was signed in the early morning hours of Monday, May 7, 1945, the time on the documents is noted as 0241 hours or 2:41 a.m."

Harry Cecil Butcher in My Three Years with Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower, 1942 to 1945 p. 152 states "2:41. A.M. British double summer time." as does Relman Morin in Dwight D. Eisenhower; a Gauge of Greatness p 124 states "2:41 am, British double summer time."

Douglas Botting From the Ruins of the Reich: Germany, 1945-1949 p. 65. "The official time of the document was given as 2:41 A.M. British Double Summer Time. The time set for the complete cessation of hostilities in Europe was given as 23:01 Central European time, May 8 (or one minute after midnight, May 9, British Time)" snipit 1 snipit 2 snipit 3

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Führer

Removed references to Karl Dönitz as Führer, as it is stated in his article that by order of Hitler he was not to carry that title. User:130.89.166.237 19:08, 1 Nov 2004

As the article says at the top Dönitz was Reichspräsident, but with the suicide of Goebbels he acted as Führer in that he collected all the remining government he could around him. So he was not just acting as head of state he was also acting as Chancellor, which made him acting Führer. The whole thing is very dubious though because under what constitutional article did Hitler get to nominate his successors? Philip Baird Shearer 19:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Italy?

Why is the "end of World War II in Europe" solely about Germany and Austria? What about Scandinavia, Eastern Europe and Italy? Get-back-world-respect 13:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article states:

General Böhne announced the unconditional surrender of German troops in Norway. It included the phrase All forces under German control to cease active operations at 2301 hours Central European time on 8th May 1945. The next day shortly before midnight, Jodl repeated the signing in Berlin at Zhukov's headquaters.

German troops in Italy had already surrendered on May 2, 1945, (as had many other German soldiers at different stages of the war), which is why they are not mentioned. After the surrender on the 8th. Some small garrisons held out for a day or so, like the Channel Islands. Theses are not mentioned because only Norway held enough soldiers to fight as an army and they surrendered on the 8th. There were no significant forces on the Eastern Front who did not obey the May 8 order to surrender. Group Army Centre was the only coherent force left and it did. Philip Baird Shearer 14:22, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

details

This article is a strategic overview of the last days of the war. It is not about individual actions. So I have removed the sinking of the SS Cap Arcona which is IMHO too detailed for this article. For example the entry on the RAF Bomber command web site Diary for May 2/3 it says:

16 Mosquito bombers of No 8 Group and 37 Mosquitos of No 100 Group were first dispatched to attack airfields in the Kiel area.

126 Mosquitos of No 8 Group then attacked Kiel in 2 raids, 1 hour apart. The target area was almost completely cloud-covered but H2S and Oboe were used. Large fires on the ground were seen through the cloud. No Mosquitos were lost on these raids. Towards morning, a large column of military vehicles departed in the direction of Flensburg on the Danish frontier.

If the sinking is included why not the bombing of Kiel? (or the air drops of Operation Manna). If these are included why not all regimental actions by all the participants on all sides for the last week of the war? Philip Baird Shearer 14:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Reasons not to recognise German self-government

I removed the following passage:

The Allies had a problem, because they realised that although the German armed forces had surrendered unconditionally, SHAEF had failed to use the document created by the "European Advisory Commission" (EAC) and so the civilian German government had not. This was considered a very important issue, because just as the civilian, but not military, surrender in 1918 had been used by Hitler to create the "stab in the back" argument, the Allies did not want to give any a future hostile German regime a legal argument to resurrect an old quarrel.

(I removed the same passage from Allied Control Council, by the way.) It was, of course, in the stated interest of the Allies (see the Potsdam Agreement, for an example) that the point that they were actually defeated was driven home to the German population, so that the developments of 1918 could not be repeated, and military occupation was one of the means to accomplish this. But the reasons to establish military rule in Germany were manifold, and of course the total reorganisation of the German state went far beyond avoiding any "stab in the back" stories. So I think that the paragraph that I have stricken out is simply not germane. If somebody wants to detail the developments that led to the mode of occupation which was finally implemented, I have nothing against that. (A good place to start may be here.) But I don't know if it's really necessary in this article. --SKopp 03:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I refer you to page 109 and the section "Tripartite Agreements". The Surrender Instrument.

Therefore, in agreeing at Moscow in November 1943 to make the writing of a surrender instrument the first task for the European Advisory Commission, the Allied foreign ministers had not selected an innocuous assignment for a body they viewed with mixed emotions. The Americans in particular, as little as their enthusiasm was for the London-situated EAC, attached great significance to the manner in which the surrender was accomplished, probably more than either the British or the Russians. The British saw the task as a major milestone in modern diplomacy, though neither an absolute end nor a beginning. The Russians wanted to document the fact of victory; the legal aspects concerned them less. The Americans tended to see the surrender as an end in itself, an end not only to German stab-in-the-back theories but also to the need for U.S. intervention in European wars.

When the Germans went to Rhiems to surrender, there was a typical military SNAFU, a junior British staff officer drew up the document based on the one used for the Italian surrender not realising that the EAC had something else in mind. page 256 "CHAPTER XV. The Victory Sealed. Surrender at Reims"I

SHAEF's wartime mission was completed, but with a last-minute twist. What the Germans signed at Reims was the "Act of Military Surrender," written three days before in the SHAEF G-3, not the painstakingly negotiated EAC surrender instrument. The chief author of the surrender document signed at Reims was a British colonel, John Counsell, an actor and theatrical manager in civilian life, who had cheerfully "cribbed" much of it from the terms for the German surrender in Italy (2 May) published in Stars and Stripes. 2 Its six short paragraphs -none more than two sentences long- simply affirmed the German High Command's unconditional surrender, to take effect fifty-nine minutes before midnight on 8 May.

Given the above I am re-instating the section you took out. The text does not mention the type of Allied Government it only mentions that there was a problem which had to be addressed because the wrong surrender documents were signed and gives the primary reason why this was considered to be a problem. The section its self does not say that it was a military government put in place just that the four allies "assume supreme authority with respect to Germany". Philip Baird Shearer 15:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

This is all very nice, but the stuff about the "stab in the back" argument from 1918 and "a future hostile German regime" still makes no sense. The slogan of 1918 was: "Im Felde unbesiegt." How would the "stab in the back" 1945 propaganda have sounded - "In der Amtsstube unbesiegt," or what? There was no way to resurrect the old treason polemics, especially not after the military surrender. Who cared about whether the sanitation department formally surrendered?! The source that you quote (p. 109) never makes the argument that somehow the failure to include the civilian government in the surrender created the danger of repeating the events after WW 1. It just invokes the 1918 situation to point out that a surrender procedure might need to be carefully orchestrated. --SKopp 22:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting that you choose to belittle the concerns of the time with "Who cared about whether the sanitation department formally surrendered?". The Second World War started only 21 years after the First World War. That means that most policy makers, who would have been over the age of 45, had lived through two world wars. That they drafted surrender articles, months before the end of the war, for both the military and the civilian governments, shows that they considered this to be important. Also when it came to the surrender of Japan no such mistake was made[1]. As to the source I have provided: "The Americans in particular, as little as their enthusiasm was for the London-situated EAC, attached great significance to the manner in which the surrender was accomplished, probably more than either the British or the Russians. ... The Americans tended to see the surrender as an end in itself, an end not only to German stab-in-the-back theories but also to the need for U.S. intervention in European wars." seems to cover it. Do you have a source which contradicts this? Philip Baird Shearer 13:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not even challenging any of that. It's absolutely believable that great care went into the orchestration of the surrender, and maybe it is worth mentioning that a great deal of that care was wasted because the EAC surrender instrument eventually wasn't used. But there's another, more specific, claim in the passage we're talking about (paraphrased):

The fact that the civilian government did not surrender posed the danger that the German right could repeat its political strategy from 1918.

In 1918, right-wing politicians (including Hitler) argued that the German army had not been defeated on the field of battle, but rather treacherous civilians had aborted the war and allowed a left-wing revolution to abolish the monarchy. Now could anyone please explain to me how such an argument might be repeated when the army is very visibly defeated, the cities lie in ruines, the military leadership has signed an unconditional surrender, but, the civilian government has not formally surrendered? I hope you see how that makes no sense to me. --SKopp 15:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No I do not. Hitler and his ilk would have just turned the argument around if the field armies had surrendered and the civilian government had not; (one occasionally hears this argument from "The south will rise again" campaigners over that other unconditional surrender at the end of the American Civil War). In 1918 Germany close to civil war, and its population close to starving, she was defeated militarily, it was just that the armistice saved a formal military surrender. Given the precedent less than a generation earlier it is understandable that the legal eagles wanted to make sure that there could be no future legal argument that the surrender was anything but complete, and so "The Americans tended to see the surrender as an end in itself, an end not only to German stab-in-the-back theories...". If you have a source that says that the the EAC did not include in its intentions an "end to German stab-in-the-back theories", then we can discuss it further. Philip Baird Shearer 16:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The argument could simply be "turned around." In 1918 the argument was: "The army was undefeated. Treacherous elements robbed victory from us." In 1945 the argument would have been: "The army was defeated and surrendered. But, the post office never gave up fighting! Treacherous generals robbed victory from us!" - Obviously it doesn't work that way. I get the impression that you think the "stab in the back" (Dolchstoß) propaganda post WW1 was just some sort of legal argument, which was morally questionable but perfectly valid because the allies had neglected to exert a surrender on the correct terms from Germany, or something. In fact it was a distortion of historical facts, if not an outright lie, to frame the leftist government as traitors to the nation. Its effect was not "to resurrect an old quarrel," it was the abolishment of the democratic consitution. This sort of propaganda could not easily be repeated after WW2. Of course, apart from the fact that the military defeat was obvious to everyone, the Allies made sure that nobody could argue otherwise later a) by getting a surrender from the military leadership, b) by placing Germany under military rule, rooting out Nazi organisations, etc. Of course, the removal of the German government was necessary for that - a formal surrender, apparently not.

The whole passage remains confusing. So the Allies "had a problem," but could simply "solve" that problem by signing a declaration - well, that wasn't really much of a problem. They decided "not to recognise Dönitz," well, they arrested him already in May. After that, who could have claimed to be the German government? I think the real story here is that the Allies wanted to abolish the German government, but the surrender was a little botched up, so they handed in their assumption of power a few weeks later, at Berlin. I would suggest the following passage as a replacement:

Contrary to their original intentions, the Allies did not use the surrender instrument drafted by the European Advisory Commission, which would have included an abdication of the German government. After the arrest of the Dönitz government, there was no central German authority and, on 5 July 1945 in Berlin, the supreme commanders of the four occupying powers signed a common Declaration Regarding the Defeat of Germany (the so-called Berlin Declaration), which formally abolished any German governance over the nation: [...]

If you can provide a source that not only proves a) that a formal civilian surrender was desired; b) that a reiteration of the 1918 events was feared - these two things are undisputed, but that also proves that a) was seen as a crucial requirement for b), then by all means provide that source. --SKopp 12:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can tell by your use of "already" that you are probably German. (I have removed it from the your last posting, for clarity). The source already provided the U.S. reasons for wanting this deceleration "The Americans tended to see the surrender as an end in itself, an end not only to German stab-in-the-back theories...". There are other sources for this which mention it eg From Yalta to Berlin: The Cold War Struggle Over Germany. Earl F. Ziemke in "Battle for Berlin: end of the Third Reich" writes on page 136 "the planned four power control encountered a legal obstacle after the surrender...Further it could potentially be construed as not effecting the civilian government of Germany at all." Another source which I have to hand, which although not mentioning the EAC, gives a collaborating explanation as to why the surrender of the German civilian government was important to the Allies. It is the analysis of allied interrogations of German military and civilians in 1945 in A. Beevor's "Berlin the downfall 1945" Page 429. If you want more sources you will have to give me a few weeks to find them in a library. I would also appreciate it if you could provide a source which states that total surrender was not in part driven by the perceived need to stop any resurrection of the stab in the back theories and to legalise the military occupation. Philip Baird Shearer 15:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not find anything in the sources you cite that directly links the necessity of civilian surrender to prevention of a recurrence of the "stab in the back argument." Of course we have the very general assertion that:

"The Americans tended to see the surrender as an end in itself, an end not only to German stab-in-the-back theories..."

But it does not say that the civilian surrender was considered particularly crucial in this regard, which it probably wasn't. Also, we have:

Further it could potentially be construed as not effecting the civilian government of Germany at all.

Probably true, but what does that have to do with said "stab in the back" propaganda? Where is evidence for the fear that a future hostile government would have "a legal argument to resurrect an old quarrel?" Did the war break out in 1939 because Hitler had "a legal argument" from 1918? Hardly so.

I also think that "The U.S. Army in the Occupation of Germany" not only does not back this claim, it almost seems to imply that a formal civilian surrender was not desired in the circumstances that the Allies eventually found in Germany, i.e. after Hitler's death:

Finally, the surrender instrument required the signature of the "highest German civilian authority" as well as the highest military authority. Hitler had killed himself on 30 April. Grossadmiral Karl Doenitz had announced himself as Hitler's appointed successor two days later and had initiated the negotiations for the surrender; but the Allies did not recognize him as head of state, and his authority, except possibly over the armed forces still fighting, was doubtful. (p. 257)

So, was it entirely by accident that Dönitz didn't get to authorise a civilian surrender?

My view is not based on any written sources, only on my observation that the passage, as it stands, ascribes rationales to the Allies that no reader can follow. And, with all due respect, I don't think it is my duty to provide sources when I don't want to insert any claims in the article. --SKopp 21:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did Hitler really commit suicide?

"On April 30, 1945, realizing that all was lost, Adolf Hitler committed suicide in his bunker". As far as I know this has actually never been prooved, his body was never found. It's generally accepted that he did but I can't help to be a little sucpicious. So what proof can you present to me?

Every source and encyclopedia says so, even though yes, it was never proved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.40.10.254 (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

His body was cremated; his remains WERE found by the Soviets, and his suicide was corroborated with exactness by everyone who survived the Fuehrerbunker. Chaparral2J (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Eisenhower's last memo

I remember reading, a while back, the text of Eisenhower's final communication as SHAEF to President Truman at the end of the war - or it could have been the final few lines of the official record of his office during the period. I'm not sure. It was very short and to the point, along the lines of "The mission of the Allied forces in Europe has been discharged. SHAEF". Any suggestions? -Ashley Pomeroy 17:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe he wrote: At (such and such hours/date) the mission of this Allied force was accomplished. Or words close to that. At time Ike was a great writer, although he became famous as President for rambling speech. DMorpheus 16:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Italian Social Republic

The Italian Social Republic is called a "puppet state" in this article. While - in practical terms - it's probably not far from the truth in many cases, the term have an highly derogatory meaning in common language (and as such it's a "not-neutral" term, and therefore not in the correct Wikipedia spirit). Moreover, properly, it imply a full control by a foreign power of all aspect of a country administration, and that was not exact in several aspects of the Italian Social Republic state (and as such it could be used in an inaccurate way). I'm not going to correct the page myself (and, anyway, it's a mere trifle) but I would suggest the main contributors to this page to consider the possibility to remove "puppet state" from the article. Another element that should be corrected is the date of the surrender of the Axis forces in Italy. Both Graziani - as commander of the Italian Forces - and the German emissary signed their surrendereds on April 29th, effective from May 1st (for the Italian) and May 2nd (for the Germans). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.13.178.249 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

arturo@lorioli.it

Remove

Like many institutions in Nazi Germany the control of the Army was split between the OKW and the German Army High Command (OKH). By 1945, the OKW commanded all German forces in every theatre apart from those on the Eastern Front, which were under OKH control and which, before his suicide, had reported directly to Hitler. So it was not clear if Schörner was under the command of OKW on May 8 or if Dönitz, or von Krosigk, needed to order Schörner to surrender. In the end it was resolved by force of arms.

Need citation for this. Roadrunner (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Clutter?

I am a little bit disappointed by recent edits [2] and especially by the comments ("removed recently introduced clutter"). The West European campaign template starts with Overlord and ends with "German capitulation", implying that the path do ultimate German defeat lied mostly in the West. Obviously, that was not the case. To balance that bias, addition of something like "Eastern European campaign" would be desirable, however, discussion here [3] demonstrated that that would be hard to combine all Eastern European campaigns during July 1944-May 1945 (the period spanned by the West European campaign template) into single template, due to enormously wide geography and large scale of the events there. Therefore, two solutions are possible:
(i) to replace the West European campaign template with something less ambitious (spanning the same period of time that the Battle of Berlin), or
(ii) to add Eastern European templates that span the same period that the West European campaign template does (starting from Bagration).
I did (i) as a temporary measure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that most appropriate question would be: does this article actually need any such templates at all? ;) If we have something about Western-Europe and something about Eastern-Europe, then we are still ignoring fighting in Italy, Lapland, Yugoslavia + anything else I forgot.--Staberinde (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Debellation etc

I seem to have a problem with PBS here. As far as I can tell he is inapropriately fond of the Debellation concept, and wishes it to stand as a boded main point in the list of timeline events, despite the fact that is a disputed concept when applied to Germany.

Personally I much prefer to note it as a subtopic of the "Declaration Regarding the Defeat of Germany and the Assumption of Supreme Authority by Allied Powers" and adding the sentence "It is disputed whether this assumption of power constituted debellation or not."

What I do believe should be bolded main points since they are significant events are instead these.

• Cessation of hostilities between the United States and Germany was proclaimed on December 13, 1946 by United States President Truman.[19]

• Peace treaties were signed on February 10, 1947 between the U.S. and Italy, Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, and Romania.

• The Federal Republic of Germany had its first government formed on 20 September 1949 while the German Democratic Republic was formed on 7 October 1949.

• End of state of war with Germany was granted by the U.S. Congress on 19 October 1951, after a request by president Truman on 9 July. The state of war between Germany and the Soviet Union was ended in early 1955.[28]

• Sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Germany was granted on May 5, 1955

• Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany: Under the terms of this peace treaty, the Four Powers renounced all rights they formerly held in Germany, including Berlin. As a result, Germany became fully sovereign on March 15, 1991

So, I've re-reverted PBS. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 18:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And I reverted your revet (not for the first time, because the version you are pushing emphasise the USA over the involvement of other states. It would better quite possible to do the same thing for any of the Allied nations, but there is no need to do so, and the alternative has better balance.

Cessation of hostilities between the United States and Germany was proclaimed on 13 December 1946 by United States President Truman.[16] Peace treaties were signed on February 10, 1947 between the U.S. and Italy, Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, and Romania. The Federal Republic of Germany had its first government formed on 20 September 1949 while the German Democratic Republic was formed on 7 October 1949. End of state of war with Germany was granted by the U.S. Congress on 19 October 1951, after a request by president Truman on 9 July....

All this information used to be in one paragraph (which still exists but for some reason has had the US information stripped out of it) in it there was much less emphasis on one Allied power. See [18 September 2008.

The Debellation is well sourced in the article and is the commonly held view among the former Allied nations of WWII. Inside Germany for internal domestic legal reasons it is convenient to argue that it was not a Debellation and I have no objections to that being raised in a footnote.

For this reason I am going to put back the full paragraph but with a rearangement of the second to last sentence as it is out of time sequence. -- PBS (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

4th May 1945

I’ve removed this statement from the 'German forces in NW Germany (etc) surrender' section
"As the operational commander of some of these forces was Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz, this signaled that the European war was over."
because despite having five references attached to it, none of them actually corroborate the statement; if anything they contradict it. The statement also contradicts the Allied view that Germany had to make a full, unconditional surrender to all the Allies, not just the AEF, which is what eventually happened on 7th May. I trust that's OK with everyone...Xyl 54 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No it is not. The sources were there not just to support that sentence. I also think that sentence should be put back. Donitz strategy was to play for time and try to surrender his armies to the Western Allies. The Western Allies were for political and logistical reasons (we'd like to talk you all prisoner but we do not have the facilities) unwilling to go down that road, hence their demand for unconditional surrender on all fronts. That Monty only took the surrender of North West Europe if the Germans surrendered the forces to all the Allies. It did indicate, particularly for the British, that the war was over. Here are a couple of other sources which have more deatils:[4][5][6] And here is another (page 50) which can be used to support the sentence. --PBS (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Finland in map

Map in article

End of Continuation War

Lapland War - German retreat

The image in the article is inaccurate with respect to Finland. Finland was never invaded by the Soviet Union, as the map implies. Instead, the Finnish-German alliance was severed, and the Continuation War ended, which led to the Lapland War. Furthermore, the map doesn't depict end-of-war front lines but something else (it's not de jure border ante bellum, and not Finnish maximum advance). The actual positions of the front lines at the end of the Continuation War and during the Lapland War can be seen from these two maps. --vuo (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

time line into sections

These two edits changed what was a time line list into sections. Should this change be kept? -- PBS (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

time line into sections?

This edit removed the section header. These two edits changed what was a time line list into sections. I am not sure this is an improvement so I am reinstating the old the header and lets see if there is a consensus for the change. -- PBS (talk) 07:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)